printNothing much at all remains of the original, American constitutional scheme, which was supposed to respect process above all, but is now result-oriented. Andrew McCarthy examines “last week’s “cromnibus” debacle” as well as the decision, Tuesday, of “a federal court in Pittsburgh—it “ruled that Obama’s amnesty decree is unconstitutional”—only to conclude that,
Imperious judicial activism is no better than imperious executive overreach. That the result the judge reaches happens to accord with conservative sentiments does not make the exercise any less invalid. After all, what offends conservatives about President Obama’s machinations is his disregard for the Constitution’s limits on his authority. Judge Schwab, analogously, has run roughshod over constitutional boundaries that limit the exercise of judicial authority. The Constitution empowers judges to resolve only cases and controversies that are actually before the court. In this case, President Obama’s decree was not before Judge Schwab — at least until he gratuitously directed the parties, who had not raised it, to address it.
These two cases are simply standard operating procedure for a Congress and a judiciary engaged in habitual, unpardonable transgressions. McCarthy’s is a good analysis, however, he should not be scandalized about business as usual in America’s highly centralized, politicized, mobocracy.